The program won't "cost" any more regardless of the value of the vehicle being disposed of. Now, if the dealers won't be giving a trade allowance if they aren't going to be able to resell the vehicle being traded, then that would make the program less attractive.

So, if your vehicle is worth more than $4500 as a trade and you won't get anything for it under this program, then you'd have to be an idiot to use the program to buy a new vehicle.

All new vehicles are going for a lot more than $4500 these days. The program isn't designed to allow you to get a "free" vehicle, it's designed to lower the overall purchase cost.

(2) DISPOSITION OF ELIGIBLE TRADE-IN VEHICLES-

(A) IN GENERAL- For each eligible trade-in vehicle surrendered to a dealer under the Program, the dealer shall certify to the Secretary, in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by rule, that the dealer--

(i) will arrange for the vehicle's title to be transferred to the United States and will accept possession of the vehicle on behalf of the United States;

(ii) has not and will not sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the vehicle for use as an automobile in the United States or in any other country; and

(iii) will transfer, on behalf of the United States, the vehicle (including the engine block) and the vehicle's title, in such manner as the Secretary prescribes, to an entity that will ensure that the vehicle--

(I) will be crushed or shredded within such period and in such manner as the Secretary prescribes; and

(II) has not been, and will not be, sold, leased, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of for use as an automobile in the United States or in any other country.

Sure I get it. However, the concept isn't necessarily stupid. It just needs better execution to be more effective.

Like I said earlier, give me this stipend AND the trade-in value of my wife's car and we'll seriously look at buying a new car. Even if it's only available for US cars, we'll take a look. I'm sure others will follow.

Otherwise, we won't be looking for at least another 3 years.

It's kind of a win-win situation. The consumer gets a great deal on a new car and essentially a "refund" of their tax dollars. The car manufacturers/dealers get to move their inventory and make some money, which hopefully in turn prompts the production of more cars and keeping/getting people working. Maybe if the cycle repeats itself a few times, the car manufacturers are back on their feet.

It may not be an ideal use of tax payer money, but I think it's much better than just handing over a pile of cash to GM, Chrysler, etc.

Instead of giving $$$ to the Big 3 which might save them, we are giving $$$ to the people to buy the cars from the Big 3.

The hope is that this will get inventory moving, the money will then go to the dealerships, then a portion to the Big 3, and I will have a newer car.

It is really no different that the $8,000 for a new house, or sending everybody a check in the mail last year to spend and get inventory moving.

Will it work, who knows? Time will tell...until then I am glad I paid of most of my debt last year.

My biggest concern is that some people who own a car that is paid off will look at this and think that they NEED a new car and now is the perfect time to get one.

Now they have a new car with a new car payment to go along with it and if something happens they will have a car in repo, debt collection calling, and the now "used" car is back at the dealer's lot waiting to be sold.

There is a reason most "rich" people drive old paid off cars. You can pay $5,000 for a $5,000 used car. Or you can finance a car $15,000 for 5 years and pay $20,000 for a car that is worth $10,000 when you are done paying for it.

Sure I get it. However, the concept isn't necessarily stupid. It just needs better execution to be more effective.

You really believe the government should be giving money to people to make them buy things they normally would not buy? Why not give rebates to buy compact fluroscent lights? Or cigarettes? Or American made underwear and socks? Do you see where this goes? The government is artificially influencing how you spend your dollars, suggesting it is better for you to buy a car you may not need rather than spend money with your mechanic getting it fixed. Or donating the car to a church so it can be given to a family in need. Instead, the government wants to pay you to throw away a car and buy a new one. It's lunacy.

Like I said earlier, give me this stipend AND the trade-in value of my wife's car and we'll seriously look at buying a new car. Even if it's only available for US cars, we'll take a look. I'm sure others will follow.

If the car is to be shredded and the dealership must promise the car will not be used by anyone else, I can assure you that you will NOT receive the trade in value.

It may not be an ideal use of tax payer money, but I think it's much better than just handing over a pile of cash to GM, Chrysler, etc.

Maybe, just maybe, they should have been permitted to go bankrupt back in 2008. Or do we just keep throwing good money after bad? Really, our billions of dollars thrown at Chrysler just gave the Italian company Fiat quite a nice little business.

If Fiat keep AMERICAN factories open, keeps AMERICANS employed, keeps AMERICAN dealerships open, then it was worth it in my book.

A bankrupt US company that cannot pay Americans their wages is a lot more worthless than an Italian company that keeps Americans on their payroll.

Interesting thought, actually. What about all the Canadians who worked in Chrysler plants in Ontario?

However, consider this: you are an Italian company with no notable presence in the USA. The American work processes, contracts and factories have already proven unprofitable. The factories are designed to build large cars and trucks, not the small, fuel-efficient ones that made Fiat so exciting to the administration. On top of that, you have Italian shareholders that demand profitability.

Are you, Mr. Italian Carmaker, going to be more concern about your Italian factories and stockholders, or the American dealers and factory workers? Now, I am not saying we need to take a protectionist stance on any of our industries. But I do think it is a little myopic to think that an Italian company with no ties to America is going to be terribly concerned about how many Americans stay employed in the left-overs of a bankrupt company that was basically given to them.

Interesting thought, actually. What about all the Canadians who worked in Chrysler plants in Ontario?

However, consider this: you are an Italian company with no notable presence in the USA. The American work processes, contracts and factories have already proven unprofitable. The factories are designed to build large cars and trucks, not the small, fuel-efficient ones that made Fiat so exciting to the administration. On top of that, you have Italian shareholders that demand profitability.

Are you, Mr. Italian Carmaker, going to be more concern about your Italian factories and stockholders, or the American dealers and factory workers? Now, I am not saying we need to take a protectionist stance on any of our industries. But I do think it is a little myopic to think that an Italian company with no ties to America is going to be terribly concerned about how many Americans stay employed in the left-overs of a bankrupt company that was basically given to them.

I think they should follow the laws in place for bankruptcy. They should be given a chance to reorganize their debts and contracts, to become economically viable, and then exit bankruptcy with court and creditor approval. It's the way hundreds of companies have done it over the years. And if they cannot be viable after restructuring, then they should be sold off and their secured creditors paid first.

That's the law. That's NOT what happened to Chrysler and GM. I do not think government-picked suitors should be given bargain pricing, while the unsecured union gets majority ownership despite its role in driving the company to bankruptcy.

Sure I get it. However, the concept isn't necessarily stupid. It just needs better execution to be more effective.

Like I said earlier, give me this stipend AND the trade-in value of my wife's car and we'll seriously look at buying a new car. Even if it's only available for US cars, we'll take a look. I'm sure others will follow.

Otherwise, we won't be looking for at least another 3 years.

It's kind of a win-win situation. The consumer gets a great deal on a new car and essentially a "refund" of their tax dollars. The car manufacturers/dealers get to move their inventory and make some money, which hopefully in turn prompts the production of more cars and keeping/getting people working. Maybe if the cycle repeats itself a few times, the car manufacturers are back on their feet.

It may not be an ideal use of tax payer money, but I think it's much better than just handing over a pile of cash to GM, Chrysler, etc.

OK, pay attention. The car gets crushed. Since the dealer gets nothing in the end why would he give you anything for a trade?

You really believe the government should be giving money to people to make them buy things they normally would not buy? Why not give rebates to buy compact fluroscent lights? Or cigarettes? Or American made underwear and socks? Do you see where this goes? The government is artificially influencing how you spend your dollars, suggesting it is better for you to buy a car you may not need rather than spend money with your mechanic getting it fixed. Or donating the car to a church so it can be given to a family in need. Instead, the government wants to pay you to throw away a car and buy a new one. It's lunacy.

If the car is to be shredded and the dealership must promise the car will not be used by anyone else, I can assure you that you will NOT receive the trade in value.

Maybe, just maybe, they should have been permitted to go bankrupt back in 2008. Or do we just keep throwing good money after bad? Really, our billions of dollars thrown at Chrysler just gave the Italian company Fiat quite a nice little business.

HUH!!! Didn't we already try getting people to buy things they couldn't afford? Suddenly the housing market crashed and the government is screwed.

Here is the deal. The United States government needs to Govern and Businesses need to run businesses. If the business has trouble or fails. Oh well. I wonder what kind of salary and benefits the Italians will give American workers

You really believe the government should be giving money to people to make them buy things they normally would not buy? Why not give rebates to buy compact fluroscent lights? Or cigarettes? Or American made underwear and socks? Do you see where this goes? The government is artificially influencing how you spend your dollars, suggesting it is better for you to buy a car you may not need rather than spend money with your mechanic getting it fixed. Or donating the car to a church so it can be given to a family in need. Instead, the government wants to pay you to throw away a car and buy a new one. It's lunacy.

Right, it's lunacy. That's why I was saying that the program needs altered to be better. No, in general I don't think that the government should be doing some of what's going on, but the fact still remains that they are. So, if they're going to give these organizations government money anyway, why do it in a fashion that benefits us too? Is it any worse than paying farmers to not produce crops?

If the car is to be shredded and the dealership must promise the car will not be used by anyone else, I can assure you that you will NOT receive the trade in value.

I'm sure that'll be the case too and think it's a fundamental "flaw" in the program.

Maybe, just maybe, they should have been permitted to go bankrupt back in 2008. Or do we just keep throwing good money after bad? Really, our billions of dollars thrown at Chrysler just gave the Italian company Fiat quite a nice little business.

Maybe they should've been, but the fact that they weren't is now irrelevant to solving the problem now.

OK, pay attention. The car gets crushed. Since the dealer gets nothing in the end why would he give you anything for a trade?

Sorry, but you're the one that needs to pay attention.

I wasn't talking about the program as proposed, I was talking about changes that I think would make it a better program, changes that would get me to consider buying a new car sooner than planned.

Part of what the car manufacturers need to get back on their feet is for people to buy their product. If I and others like myself aren't planning to buy a car for 3 more years, then we aren't helping to "fix" the problem. However, if the government is going to give us a substantial amount of money towards the cost of that vehicle, while keeping any other incentives, trade-in value, etc. in place, then some of us might buy early in order to save some money and thus be able to "help".

They don't. They spent themselves and built themselves into the position they are in.

Either they recover from it or they don't. Fiat is the company that GM paid 2 billion dollars to last year to divest themselves from. So Fiat turns around and buys another failing US automaker with those same $2,000,000,000.

I wasn't talking about the program as proposed, I was talking about changes that I think would make it a better program, changes that would get me to consider buying a new car sooner than planned.

Part of what the car manufacturers need to get back on their feet is for people to buy their product. If I and others like myself aren't planning to buy a car for 3 more years, then we aren't helping to "fix" the problem. However, if the government is going to give us a substantial amount of money towards the cost of that vehicle, while keeping any other incentives, trade-in value, etc. in place, then some of us might buy early in order to save some money and thus be able to "help".

After reading your post I think we are both on the same page. It is an absolutely horrible piece of legislation. All it is doing is guaranteeing that I will get $3,500 or $4,500 for my trade. This is as bad as the Community Reinvestment Act which contributed in large part to the collapse of our economy. That and the notion that everyone needs a $100,000 home even if they can't afford it.

Let's say that you are trading in your 1990 SUV that gets 8 MPG. It books for $2,000 but the government will guarantee you $4,500. The dealer takes the list price of your new SUV getting 18 mpg, knocks off $4,500, throws in any other rebates and incentives, and you end up at $30,000. Don't you think if you could afford the $30,000 you would have done it in the first place? To be really effective, they would have to guarantee the Blue Book price plus the $4,500. And who would benefit from that???

Its called Chapter 11. Sort of like what Chrysler and GM ended up doing after we "bailed them out".

On a side note, watching CNN this weekend and they had a story about rising gas prices. The economist are saying that commodity prices are rising becuase of the weak dollar. The dollar is weak becuase of the bailouts and the huge deficit. People are asking how is the U.S. going to pay back this worthless debt. I recommend people research Germany around 1920. You will then see how ill-advised our current policy is.

I was quite surprised when Fiat got into the market to buy GM. In Europe, other than Italy, Fiat is not that well regarded. Theres quite a few automakers ahead of them. Reneault, VW, Audi, Puegeot, Toyota, Honda, just to name a few. I'm not sure they have anything to bring to the table regarding improving GMs chances for survival other than 2 Billion $

I was quite surprised when Fiat got into the market to buy GM. In Europe, other than Italy, Fiat is not that well regarded. Theres quite a few automakers ahead of them. Reneault, VW, Audi, Puegeot, Toyota, Honda, just to name a few. I'm not sure they have anything to bring to the table regarding improving GMs chances for survival other than 2 Billion $

First, Fiat has purchased Chrysler, not GM. Just a clarification.

Second, Fiat was chosen because it makes lots of small cars with tiny engines. That way the government can force Chrysler to do the same in the push for fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction. Either that, or no one else was silly enough to want to buy Chrysler.

Second, Fiat was chosen because it makes lots of small cars with tiny engines. That way the government can force Chrysler to do the same in the push for fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction. Either that, or no one else was silly enough to want to buy Chrysler.

My apologies about the Chrysler/GM mix up. Sometimes my typing gets ahead of my brain. Fiat does make small engines, but ,IMO, they don't hold a candle to VW, or Reneault, or even some of the Asian groups like Daiwoo or Hyundai. I'm pretty damn sure there is enough engineering talent on this side of the pond for us to make our own fuel efficient, relatively powerful engines to keep jobs here. I really don't see Fiat being on the scene for more than 3 or 4 years. An Audi can easily keep up with a Chrysler 300 C.

Second, Fiat was chosen because it makes lots of small cars with tiny engines. That way the government can force Chrysler to do the same in the push for fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction. Either that, or no one else was silly enough to want to buy Chrysler.

Problem is, people in this country don't want those little death traps. The Enviro-nuts are so dense that they don't get the concept that most people really don't have their enthusiasm for rising bicycles and eating granola bars.

Our cars get lower fuel mileage in part becuase they are heavier for safety reasons. The second thing that affects the fuel mileage is the pollution controls. And as for Greenhouse Gases, nothing but a bunch of Hot Air to make people like Al Whore RICH!! When one examines the science they see that the nut cases pushing this agenda have over exaggerated and overstated consistently. They don't mention the part about how we have been cooling for 10 years. They don't mention the part about the 130,000 year cycle. Based on past history we are about to go into another ice age. Then what. Man cannot control the climate.